b5media.com

Enjoying this blog? Check out the rest of the Celebrities Channel

Lohan Groupie - Lindsay Lohan News

Lindsay Lohan loves her Fur

by Arieanna on January 28th, 2008

Well, Lindsay Lohan is definitely a fashionista, but an animal lover I’m not so sure. She was seen out in two different fur coats this weekend - first the black number for when she went out to the Waverly Inn. Now this long fur coat as she was seen dining at Da Silvano.

Tags: lindsay lohan, lindsay lohan candids, lindsay lohan photos, lindsay lohan pictures, celebrity, entertainment, celeb

Share This

Larry R
Jan 28, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Hey Just Sayin, Let me ask you a question ? I read somewhere that Lindsay was put on a Thousand Dollar a Day, limit on her shopping, because someone was worried about her cash flow, How many D-Listers, have that problem ? A 1,000 Dollars a D_A_Y , now i don’t know about you, but in a YEAR that adds up to 365,000 dollars, now I wouldn’t mind being on someones “D” list at a measly 365,000 dollars a year….Of course I don’t believe She was put on a spending limit, for Her own good, but none the less, 365,000 dollars a year isn’t half bad, for a personal spending allowance, don’t you think ? Of course YOU probably have a personal spending limit of what, 10 times that ? So no “D” list worries for you…..right ? Now ME, for Instance, I am a top-notch computer Tech! and at my last job I made 20,000 in one YEAR ! Isn’t that Great, let me see, 20,000 divide into 365,000 ( just her personal spending allowance limit by the way, don’t loose sight of that for this “D” list person now ya’ hear? ) so that’s what, 18 years income for me, just on Her personal spending allowance, poor little ” D ” list Actress, but of Course YOU have much much more money than that I am sure, you must make enough money to be able to judge HER, as a ” D ” lister Right ? SO NOT.
GOD Bless You Always, Lindsay D Lohan, I Love You Always, me, Larry T Robinson, O.R. Tn.
alolo
Jan 29, 2008 at 2:56 am

ARIEANNA, this photo thing…:
hate it-can’t see it
smartypants
Jan 29, 2008 at 5:34 am

I have no problem with the fur coat whatsoever. The bigger issue to me is this young girl, who not too long ago looked young, cute and carefree, now looks kind of like a 40 year old burnout. Is she doing research on how to ruin your life?
Harry S
Jan 29, 2008 at 7:34 am

What do you mean smartypants? She looks hot man! If that is a 40 year old burnout then I hope I will look that healthy when I’m a burnout.
I love the smile.
smartypants
Jan 29, 2008 at 8:37 am

She just looks overprocessed that’s all, like a lot of Hollywood women. She’s good-looking enough; she doesn’t need all of whatever is spread on her cheeks. What’s up with that?
share da bear
Jan 29, 2008 at 8:50 am

sadness.
Arieanna
Jan 29, 2008 at 10:32 am

alolo - do you have javascript on? These photos are legal, so I am giving them a go. But you need javascript on.
youthandyoungmanhood
Jan 29, 2008 at 2:27 pm

I agree Lindsay looks so much older than her years, I’m no PETA freak but the fact she wears fur after once vowing never to wear it again says alot about her character ie its fake & geared towards making headline statements (like we’re giving her)! I like Lindsay but it makes me sad how desperate she is for paparazzi approval/attention, I just wish she’d get back to acting because that’s where we’ve lost a real talent. Lindsay, leave media whoring to Paris Hilton & ditch the fur coats PLEASE show us you’re more than that! :)
smartypants
Jan 29, 2008 at 2:45 pm

I think her fur looks great; it’s the rest of her that seems to be off. Why do celebs have to “ditch the fur coats”? What’s with this class warfare nonsense? When everyone ditches their leather coats and shoes, maybe then people should ditch their furs.
youthandyoungmanhood
Jan 29, 2008 at 3:19 pm

I never mentioned class in relation to fur, the reality of fur farming can hardly be compared to the historical use of meat carcass to make leather can it? Fur is 100% unnecessary except for the animal it was skinned alive for so I think as it is simply a fashion statement albeit a cruel one it should be tackled first before we start on shoes which really is an uphill struggle. Before you ask, I myself do not wear leather. I just wish Lindsay who clearly has influence would use her influence in a more positive way than this.
tinkerbell
Jan 29, 2008 at 5:54 pm

I dont no what the hell you guys are talking about! lindsay looks hot, young, flashy and cool! personally I think you all are hateing sorry. it’s nothing wrong with how ms. lilo looks. if it is then I must be blind cuz I cant see it whatsoever! gorgeous.
Rachel Rule:dave must visit LG.com often
Jan 29, 2008 at 6:42 pm

hello,gorgeous…
i agree with tinkerbelle,all of you are being negative and hateful,instead of commenting on the fact that she looks great,and for all of you that keep wanting the ‘mean girls cady heron Lindsay’ back,uh,that movie was filmed in aug-nov of 2003,FIVE YEARS AGO,people change in looks as they get older,and i personally find Lindsay to be as beautiful as ever,though i would prefer the auburn-red hair,but i will always love Lindsay,blonde,brunette,or redhead.love always,a huge fan and friend.peace

Harlan:”you’re dangerous,girl,aren’t you?”
Rachel:”depends on what you consider dangerous.”
Harlan:”safer to get thrown from a horse.”
Rachel:”well,you don’t have to brush or feed me after riding me.”(awesome line!Rachel rules!!!)
Georgia Rule 2007
LindsLover
Jan 30, 2008 at 3:03 am

cool? hot?? PUH-LESE. animals DIE so that we can look HOT!!!!!?????????????? this is ridiculous. i just gave up meat, chicken, and pork last december because i couldn’t stand animals being tortured and killed!!!! i can still understand some people eating meat coz it’s for good health. BUT ANIMAL FUR??????????????????????????????? it just doesn’t make any sense. there are many alternatives to staying warm. i love you, lindsay. but i cannot accept this. plz don’t wear fur.
Roll On Patty
Jan 30, 2008 at 7:38 am

I agree with LindsLover! I love Lindsay but come on even she can’t glamourise dead animals and making them suffer for a COAT! I always thought of Linds as someone I’d like to know & I’d like her better if she showed some compassion
Rachel Rule:dave must visit LG.com often
Jan 30, 2008 at 5:44 pm

good point,Larry,and btw,how do you people know that fur is real?huh?!i have seen faux fur coats exactly like this one at lord & taylor department store,a ritzy store,and also at macys.maybe you should give her the benefit of the doubt as fans,until it is proven that they are real fur,and not by some fat slob perezhole blogger or random haters and trashloid junkies.peace
smartypants
Jan 31, 2008 at 12:43 pm

Yeah, as if animals aren’t going to die if we Lindsay Lohan doesn’t wear fur. Get real. Animals are not “tortured” in the fur industry. In fact, animals are more likely to be tortured by Mother Nature herself than in the fur industry. I like animals too, but this idea that somehow humans are more cruel than nature itself is ridiculous. In the wild, animals starve to death, are eaten alive and are brutalized in other ways EVERY SINGLE DAY. All of humanity could stop wearing fur tomorrow and it’s not going to change this fact one bit. Animals that are raised fo their fur live more humane lives than those born in the wild. Stop buying PETA’s biased message. PETA uses emotional arguments to raise money–lots of money. And you’re falling for its twisted agenda—hook. line and sinker.
nicole diver
Jan 31, 2008 at 1:38 pm

“Animals that are raised fo their fur live more humane lives than those born in the wild” Don’t make me laugh! No I see why you’re a fan of Lindsay Lohan you miseducated dumbass!
Deep Background
Jan 31, 2008 at 7:58 pm

Note that Peta nonsense please! But, Lindsay you had better watch out for those nuts.
rebel
Jan 31, 2008 at 11:29 pm

why??!?! fur is gross to wear and should only be worn on animals!
Larry R
Feb 1, 2008 at 1:49 am

Hey Arieanna what happend to my O good grief charlie brown comment ? the whole thing is gone, I thought it appropo to the discussion, and true and to the point ?? Did the PETA people disaprove ? Oh Well.
GOD Bless You Always Lindsay D Lohan, I Love You Always, me, Larry T Robinson O.R. Tn.
Arieanna
Feb 1, 2008 at 9:58 am

It was borderline. You made valid comments but directed them a little too angrily. I couldn’t figure out how to edit that out. Feel free to add your argument again, but without directing it at anyone :)
Ag
Feb 1, 2008 at 10:15 am

Fur farming is very cruel and unnecessary. Nature may be “cruel”, but that is all about natural selection of the fittest. However, natural selection improves the species for survival. If there was no natural selection than cruelty would be even more present in nature. Nonetheless, people consider themselves better than animals yet they still have fur farms. Fur farms breed animals for the sole purpose of profit. The animals are allowed to suffer and given the bare minimum to keep them a live. They live in tiny cages in which they go crazy. All the instincts they have evolved for thousands of years make life in a cage torture. They have no where to run as they would if they were living wild. Social animals have no social contact with others which also makes them go crazy. Some animals become injured and no money is spent to alleviate their pain. Their entire life is torture and goes against everything they have evolved to be in order to survive in the natural world. At the end of their hopeless and meaningless life they are tortured some more when they are beaten or electrocuted which leaves a lot of them stunned, but alive when they are skinned.
So yes, nature is cruel , but by no means does it compare to human cruelty. Human cruelty is purposeful and we know what we are doing to these poor animals. They’re lives are meaningless and intolerable. In nature, cruelty is about survival. Do I need a fur coat to survive? I don’t and neither does Lindsay (assuming she is wearing real fur, but even if it is fake she isn’t making a statement of it being fake in which case she is saying wearing fur is good and in the end sending the message to people who idolize her)
Deep Background
Feb 1, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Is it really any worse than “food farming” or should I say ranching? Remember the animals in question would exit if it was for the fur industry or at least 99.9+% of them wouldn’t.
Ag
Feb 1, 2008 at 7:04 pm

I don’t support food farming either. Most practices in the meat industry are cruel as well. Maybe if the animals were treated well and killed humanely I wouldn’t have chosen to be vegetarian. I know when my grandparents used to keep animals they were well treated and cared for. Yes, those animals wouldn’t be alive if not for the industry (whether food or fur), but why breed animals if they are going to end up tortured their entire lives. In my opinion, animals made for fur shouldn’t be even bred to begin with. I don’t see what the need for a fur coat is. With the meat industry, people are eating the meat and getting nutritional benefits from it. I don’t think its wrong to eat meat, but it is wrong to treat animals the way they are treated in the meat industry.
Ag
Feb 1, 2008 at 7:07 pm

I tried to respond more in depth, but I was told that I already said that. Both industries are horrible in my opinion. Though fur is unnecessary. I don’t see why people shouldn’t eat meat, but animals should be treated humanely if people need meat to be healthy. For the record, I am vegetarian.
Larry R
Feb 4, 2008 at 1:11 am

I, after thinking about it for two days or so, have decided to recount moreor less two of the points I made in the deleted comment, with out the ” anger issues ” So first and most important point, food farming has gone on on this planet since people discovered that they could have a greater quality of life, by raising and providing the best possible environment for their food supply, be-it Animal, Vegatable, or Mineral. We do our best to see to it that the cows, horses, pigs, chickens, goats, even fish farms, are raising the produce as healthy as possibly is possible at the current state of the art, comensurate with economic availability of the farmer or rancher to do so, so as to get the most profit out of same, sick livestock, or even vegatable meterial, does not sell good. Not so with all fur farming, however, there would be fewer of those animals, if we didn’t raise them for their fur, and they would be hunted in the wild by their natural predators, who would not necessarily kill them outright before eating them, so they would essentially be eaten alive, or even partially eaten alive, as some parts are disagreeable to predators, then left for dead, till they died horribly mangeled and suffering. It is to OUR interests, to increase their populations for our own purposes, and to protect same from disease, if possible, and from predators, as dead livestock for whatever purpose, does no one any good monitarily. So I propose that instead of just raising fur animals for their furs ( the Eskimo’s by the way still hunt seals for their fat, and skins, and polar bears for their furs, but you don’t see PETA going after them !! Do You !! ) and Blowing PETA’s argument away about the ” Cruelty to Animals of Fur Farming ” that we raise MANY MANY MANY More of these animals than we need, keep them well fed, and take care of their illnesses to the best of their ability and then when they die of natural causes, we can use the Fur they leave behind, with out having to kill them for it. We can do the same to all the endangered spiecies on the planet, and thus beat the environmentalists at their own game. Especially the Elephants, and Poaching of Ivory Tusks, just Rais the Elephants, like Cows, and when they die of OLD age, we will have TONS of Ivory, and the Ivory Trade can once again enjoy a lucrative status. Same thing with Whales, and Whale Bone. Just put little long life tracking modules on them, and when they get old and die go harvest what we need. Problem Solved, Sorry PETA. You Lose.
GOD Bless You Always, Lindsay D Lohan, I Love You Always, me, Larry T Robinson.
smartypants
Feb 28, 2008 at 2:29 pm

At the end of the day, too many people are denying that we are nothing more than animals as well. Animals are cruel to each other, and we are animals. Whenever decisions are made strictly on emotional grounds, and many animal rights related issues are purely emotional, they often fail the logic test. Animals kill each other, but we shouldn’t. Nature herself kills animals indiscriminately, but it is not human being’s place to do so. This kind of viewpoint contradicts itself because it, at the same time, places us as part of nature but demands that we follow a different set of rules. Either that, or the assumption is that we’re just some kind of impatial observers on this planet and have no right to its resources. And saying that it is okay to wear leather because we eat animals is also ridiculous. On this basis, it is then okay to wear fur if we just start eating those animals. So the issue is not whether or not it is right to wear fur, but whether you want ketchup or mustard on your mink burger. Plus, a by-product of the fur industry is animal food for our pets. That’s right, do some research (preferably from a source other than PETA) and you will see that the fur industry provides tons of meat for the pet food market. So Fido just might be eating the animal that was used for LL’s coat. Is that such a problem?
smartypants
Feb 28, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Bottom line, if you love fur wear it. If you don’t, move on by. There’s are a lot of things that people do that I don’t like, but I don’t go around haranguing them for it. Can anyone say “abortion”? You pro-choice anti-fur people really need to explain yourselves on that one. Better yet, don’t bother. I know it won’t make any sense.
lottie_sweety
Jun 23, 2008 at 9:05 pm

i love you lindsay!